jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (07/04/88)
[ Sorry for the wide posting. This really is very important ]
Below is a copy of a letter which was received recently from AT&T. This
letter explains the status of the ``Public Domain'' YACC which I
recently posted about. Because of the incredible speed (heavy sarcasm)
with which the USMail delivers letters, I didn't receive the delivery
notice until last week. You should receive this posting before O. L.
Wilson receives his signed and dated letter back via U. S. Mail.
One interesting thing about this letter, the city in the address was
listed as Renner, which is the same city South Western Bell thinks I
live in for billing purposes. Renner ceased to exist several years ago
when Dallas annexed it. How do you think AT&T found out where I live?
Frightening isn't it? Especially when you consider the correct address
is given in the UUCP maps? ;-) ;-) ;-).
Immediately after the letter is a list of systems which may have
received a copy of YACC via anonymous UUCP. Please check that your
system is not listed, and if it is, that you do not have a copy of this
software on your machine. Unfortunately I don't have the logs going
back this far, but if your machine is listed, it has been in contact
with rpp386 at some time during the period when YACC was available.
Some of the machines are within the AT&T system, please, I don't have
time to check the organization each machine belongs to. If you are an
AT&T source licensee, you obviously don't have to worry. I think ...
Also, the system names have been truncated to seven characters, courtesy
of UUCP and the R_stat file. If you system name matches one listed
below to seven characters, please consider your system to have been
included in the list below.
Thanks,
- John.
--
Dear Mr. Haugh:
There was a netnews article on April 19, 1988 announcing
that you had a list of files that [ are ] public domain. One
of the files listed [ was ] YACC. YACC is not public domain
software. The software is AT&T's intellectual property
obtainable by licensing only.
We must have your assurance that you have ceased
distributing copies of YACC and that you have destroyed all
copies in your possession.
You may certify that you have ceased making and/or
distributing copies of YACC and that you have destroyed all
copies of the software in your possession by signing and
dating the attached copy of this letter in the spaces
provided therefor and returning such copy to us. If we
receive such signed and dated copy within thirty (30) days,
we will consider the matter closed.
Very truly yours,
(signed) O L Wilson
--
FCPS IrsXeni ajmsys alice aquinas arcoexr atina atlpyr
base16 basis bbussc bby-bc bellboy bigtex bms-at boake2
bpa bradley brave brcbkly brspyr1 bsadrc camber catuc
ccd700 cesbws cimcor cline01 cloud9 cocktri cognos comdesi
convex coplex corpane cp1 crdos1 crlabs cronus csccat
daisy dalsqnt daver deincr dhPC-AT dhpcat didsgn entropy
fasolt fbmtl fmsrl5 fmsrl7 frito ganglio gcfast gort
grc gsg gunnix happym hombre hpxcnca htsrmx htwoo
jarsun1 jassys jlsoft jmdst joshua killer kontron lan000
ldcx25 lngnck loci lotus madnix magnus marob mcl
merk mipseas mjbtn mmd2 mpuls1 mpx1 ninja nsacray
obiwan oncoast ontenv otishq ozdaltx pigs pollux qetzal
raider rcf reason redwood rush sauron schen sherpa1
sialis simon skipnyc smergol soft21 spdyne spked srhqla
stanton sulaco swlabs t9103 tau-cet tegan tester texsun
tness5 tness7 top toplog ttdcl1 u-word ucmsa upcjsd
uxcmb validea vector vijit viusys warble watabox wiuaz
wybbs xenix28 xenix38 xnxcws yak ssc cdes wjt3pc
xxx spsspyr swbatl hrsw2 infopro ucmdal tanelor mrmarx
akinsol oss410 celerit elan rocky ateng n0atp ptisea
comnet3 dms-at heaven csiris imsys sfkwj motown banana
mp386 dsix2
--
John F. Haugh II +--------- Cute Chocolate Quote ---------
HASA, "S" Division | "USENET should not be confused with
UUCP: killer!rpp386!jfh | something that matters, like CHOCOLATE"
DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- with my apologizesloci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (07/04/88)
In article <3532@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: >[ Sorry for the wide posting. This really is very important ] This is an incredible botch! > >Below is a copy of a letter which was received recently from AT&T. This >letter explains the status of the ``Public Domain'' YACC which I >recently posted about. BTW, you checked his copyright? > >Immediately after the letter is a list of systems which may have >received a copy of YACC via anonymous UUCP. Please check that your >system is not listed, and if it is, that you do not have a copy of this >software on your machine. I checked. It is. I don't. But why am I listed with the entire who's who? Did I have anything whatsoever to do with this mess? NO! And I really don't like lists like this a bit. > Unfortunately I don't have the logs going >back this far, but if your machine is listed, it has been in contact >with rpp386 at some time during the period when YACC was available. Why the confession? Actions speak louder still. This is an ignorant hachet-job you call administration. I wouldn't care if you'd leave me out of it, but you want to play at name-dropping, "oooo look kiddies, all these connections", and link everyone with your foul-up. >Some of the machines are within the AT&T system, please, I don't have >time to check the organization each machine belongs to. If you are an >AT&T source licensee, you obviously don't have to worry. I think ... >Also, the system names have been truncated to seven characters, courtesy >of UUCP and the R_stat file. If you system name matches one listed >below to seven characters, please consider your system to have been >included in the list below. > Just what are you trying to say? Everyone who has access by any means (anon uucp, PC Pursuit) is touched. Why do you feel compelled to be so grandious? Did your dog die or something? >Thanks, >- John. >DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- with my apologizes In the recent past, you have posted personal attacks against other SA's, issued groups and threatened more in areas yet unresolved, and now this jesture. Are you sure you can handle a great big 386 all by yourself? Maybe you need training wheels? Why do you keep changing your names? Are you embarrassed to go by one name and live with what you say? Are you getting set-up to pull a bone-head JJ stunt? Why don't you just tell us what's next so we can avoid the rush to dis-connect. -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083 clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (07/05/88)
In article <3532@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh III) writes: > >Below is a copy of a letter which was received recently from AT&T. This >letter explains the status of the ``Public Domain'' YACC which I >recently posted about. >-- >Dear Mr. Haugh: > >There was a netnews article on April 19, 1988 announcing >that you had a list of files that [ are ] public domain. One >of the files listed [ was ] YACC. YACC is not public domain >software. The software is AT&T's intellectual property >obtainable by licensing only. This raises a couple of questions: 1. Are they reacting to the _name_ YACC, or did they look at the actual files John had on his system and determine that they consisted of or contained AT&T-owned source? 2. If they are reacting to the name YACC, does this mean that they ARE moving towards considering the names of *NIX utilities their property which no-one else may use? If so, where does this leave such products as MINIX, MKS, etc.? It might be useful if Mr. Wilson of AT&T could address these two questions; he or his colleagues obviously read news or they would not have known about John's posting. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (07/05/88)
In article <3532@rpp386.UUCP>, jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: > > Below is a copy of a letter which was received recently from AT&T. This > letter explains the status of the ``Public Domain'' YACC which I > recently posted about. Actually It doesn't. The letter states correctly that YACC is an AT&T product which can only be obtained by licence from AT&T. However what is not clear from this posting is whether or not anyone at AT&T looked at the file in question and determined that it does contain licenced code or that they simply object to the use of their legally trademarked name to describe this program which is otherwise legitimately in the Public Domain. I can't blame John for acting quickly and thoroughly to satisfy AT&T, especially considering AT&T's recent track record with Public Access sites in Texas:-). However before we expunge someones hard work from the network someone who still has this file(s) should invite AT&T to inspect it for licenced code and if it contains none make it available under another, non-trademarked name. However if it does contain licenced code ... nuke it. And inform the net that such is the case. The Text of the letter in question follows: | Dear Mr. Haugh: | | There was a netnews article on April 19, 1988 announcing | that you had a list of files that [ are ] public domain. One | of the files listed [ was ] YACC. YACC is not public domain | software. The software is AT&T's intellectual property | obtainable by licensing only. | | We must have your assurance that you have ceased | distributing copies of YACC and that you have destroyed all | copies in your possession. | | You may certify that you have ceased making and/or | distributing copies of YACC and that you have destroyed all | copies of the software in your possession by signing and | dating the attached copy of this letter in the spaces | provided therefor and returning such copy to us. If we | receive such signed and dated copy within thirty (30) days, | we will consider the matter closed. | | Very truly yours, | | (signed) O L Wilson -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: utgpu!ontmoh!------------\ VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 {attcan,utzoo}!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!norm ENVOY: N.SOLEY "ZIK ZAK -- We make everything you need and you need everything we make"
haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (07/06/88)
In article <135@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >1. Are they reacting to the _name_ YACC, or did they look at the actual > files John had on his system and determine that they consisted of > or contained AT&T-owned source? i don't know. otis wilson is out of town, and i suspect only he knows. i doubt they picked the code up from me, more likely they are aware the posting shouldn't have been made from previous inquiries. of course, i may be wrong. for everyone's information, the source was obtained from killer's comp.unix.sources archive as i recall. you might want to check your machine if you archive comp.unix.sources. >2. If they are reacting to the name YACC, does this mean that they ARE > moving towards considering the names of *NIX utilities their property > which no-one else may use? If so, where does this leave such products > as MINIX, MKS, etc.? no, they seem to be aiming at the source itself, or possibly the ideas contained in the source. i'm not certain. i don't know how this will affect unix-like utilities. it may affect clones which are not exact source ripoffs, but say, used the exact same algorithms. for example, a yacc clone which built a lalr(0) parser identical to the real yacc might be more in danger than one which built a lr(0) or lr(1) parser. >It might be useful if Mr. Wilson of AT&T could address these two questions; >he or his colleagues obviously read news or they would not have known about >John's posting. in speaking with someone at at&t software licensing i learned that they do not have netnews access. so, mr. wilson will not be reading about this on the net. - john. -- Joe Bob Willie Big "D" Oil and Gas UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :DOMAIN **** Trivia question of the day: VYARZERZIMANIMORORSEZASSEZANSERAREORSES? **** "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (07/06/88)
Arg. Some people have written to express their dismay at the removal of YACC. I have obtained the GNU BISON sources and will soon have them up and running here. If you aren't familiar with GNU, it is a YACC replacement. My understanding is that BISON is better than YACC. You will get to be the judge. Also, the story continues. The YACC in question was the DECUS YACC. If you have any information concerning licensing restrictions on that YACC, please let me know. I am sending a tape containing the source off to AT&T for their inspection but would still appreciate a second opinion. - John. -- John F. Haugh II +--------- Cute Chocolate Quote --------- HASA, "S" Division | "USENET should not be confused with UUCP: killer!rpp386!jfh | something that matters, like CHOCOLATE" DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- with my apologizes
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (07/06/88)
In article <560@ontenv.UUCP> soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: :In article <3532@rpp386.UUCP>, jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: :> Below is a copy of a letter which was received recently from AT&T. This :> letter explains the status of the ``Public Domain'' YACC which I :> recently posted about. :Actually It doesn't. [...] However what :is not clear from this posting is whether or not anyone at AT&T looked :at the file in question and determined that it does contain licenced :code or that they simply object to the use of their legally :trademarked name to describe this program which is otherwise legitimately A long time ago, on a DECUS* tape far, far away, was a copy of YACC that really shouldn't have been there because it *WAS* still AT&T code and not public domain. Periodically it pops up again, and periodically our lawyers have to remind people that yacc is a licensed product; as far as I know nobody cares about the name, though I haven't looked at our list of registered trademarks lately. If you want a yacc-like product that is free but copylefted, the GNU project's BISON is available through ftp from the usual archives. A more serious issue is whether there's any license restriction on code *produced* by yacc (since it contains the parser driver verbatim calling a bunch of tables.) I remember reading on the net that there isn't - does someone have an authoritative reference from AT&T? : :However if it does contain licenced code ... nuke it. And inform the :net that such is the case. Yup. Also, if you're using "Z", a vi-imitation written by Jim Goodnow, nuke it too. (It's his code, not ours, but you shouldn't rip him off either - an old version of Z has been distributed on BBSs.) -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs * DEC WARS was recently reposted to rec.humor
erik@romax3b2.UUCP (Erik Murrey) (07/06/88)
In article <235@pigs.UUCP>, haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) writes: > In article <135@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > >2. If they are reacting to the name YACC, does this mean that they ARE > > moving towards considering the names of *NIX utilities their property > > which no-one else may use? If so, where does this leave such products > > as MINIX, MKS, etc.? > > no, they seem to be aiming at the source itself, or possibly the ideas > contained in the source. i'm not certain. i don't know how this will > affect unix-like utilities. it may affect clones which are not exact > source ripoffs, but say, used the exact same algorithms. for example, > a yacc clone which built a lalr(0) parser identical to the real yacc > might be more in danger than one which built a lr(0) or lr(1) parser. I remember reading a paper which was the basis of YACC's algorithms. I think it was in CACM, something like "Deterministic Parsing of Ambiguous Grammars" (I may be way off here...). It discussed disambiguating rules for shift-reduce and shift-shift confilcts, and how to incorporate them into a lalr(0) parser generator such as YACC. Wouldn't this nullify any claim for trade secrets within YACC? --- Erik Murrey erik@mpx1.UUCP ...!{bpa,vu-vlsi,cbmvax}!mpx1!erik ok, so my spelling sucks... what do you want?
richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) (07/10/88)
In article <235@pigs.UUCP>, haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) writes: > In article <135@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > >2. If they are reacting to the name YACC, does this mean that they ARE > > moving towards considering the names of *NIX utilities their property > > which no-one else may use? If so, where does this leave such products > > as MINIX, MKS, etc.? If so, AT&T will have a long, lonely, and futile struggle (not to mention expensive). A good argument can be made that a lot of Unix command names have become generic. This ship sailed a long time ago. > > no, they seem to be aiming at the source itself, or possibly the ideas > contained in the source. i'm not certain. i don't know how this will > affect unix-like utilities. it may affect clones which are not exact > source ripoffs, but say, used the exact same algorithms. for example, > a yacc clone which built a lalr(0) parser identical to the real yacc > might be more in danger than one which built a lr(0) or lr(1) parser. > Ditto the above if they think they can copyright (or patent) an algorithm. (I think I'll patent addition with carry this week ;-). Now a technological implementation of an algorithm is a different matter altogether. I CAN patent a piece of hardware that implements addition with carry. And, even if independently developed, you can't use this implementation without my permi$$ion. However, you may patent a different implementation. I CAN copyright code that implements addition with carry (because I didn't want to buy the hardware that implements it :-) and you can't use my code without my permi$$ion. However, if you independently develop your own code that implements addition with carry (you don't want to buy the hardware either :-) you don't need my permission. But (and this is a grey area) if I copyright the visual and auditory interface, you CAN'T copy that (the classic example is a table of sines and cosines - obviously I can't copyright the information but I can copyright its representation). _Caveat_: I'm not a lawyer; don't make any important decisions based on the above opinions. If it's important, get valid legal advice. It would seem that if AT&T were concerned about names and algorithms that they would have attempted to stop the MKS yacc distribution since a) the tool is named yacc, and b) it demonstrates a very high degree of compatibility with Unix yacc (implying that the underlying algorithm(s) are the same). AT&T seems to be pursuing with a vengence the supposedly pd yacc code that got out a while back. I know both Austin Code Works and The C User's Group have removed versions of yacc at AT&T's behest. I believe both replaced it with Bison. However, one or more versions of yacc ported to the pc have gotten into the pc BBS base and will probably never be rooted out. Actually, at one time I had the pc-based yacc sources. While I could get them to compile, I couldn't get them to accept .y files that Unix yacc handled with no problem. I threw them away rather than try to track down the problem. Now I use MKS yacc. richard hargrove ...!{ihnp4 | codas | cbosgd}!killer!richardh --------------------------------------------
simcha@humming.UUCP (Simcha Lerner) (07/11/88)
In article <4765@killer.UUCP> richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes: > >Ditto the above if they think they can copyright (or patent) an algorithm. >(I think I'll patent addition with carry this week ;-). > >richard hargrove >...!{ihnp4 | codas | cbosgd}!killer!richardh >-------------------------------------------- Alas, I must disagree. Having spent a lot of time on these issues with expensive lawyers (thankfully in a preventative, not curative mode), I have a different understanding. Algorithms ARE patentable, and not just the hardware implementation, as Mr. Hargrove felt was "logical". For example, the RSA public key encryption algorithm has been patented, solely on a paper based exposition of its powers and abilities (along with the algorithm, of course). What would prevent Mr. Hargrove from patenting his "add with carry" algorithm has nothing to do with its being an algorithm, but rather with it being "either part of existing art, or obvious from existing art", which is one (of many) potential disqualifications an application must face. NOTE: I have set the followup to comp.sources.d, since this is becoming too general a thread to clutter up the world. I too must disclaim the above with the fact that I am not a lawyer, and therefore the above must be treated as hearsay. :-) Simcha Lerner ...(harvard | talcott)!humming!simcha disclaimer: My employer has his own lawyers, his own opinions about patents, and his own opinion as to whether I am entitled to publicly express an opinion. Therefore, in accordance with section VII, article 3, paragraph 2 of the usenet code of ethics, I take full responsibility for the entire contents of this posting. This posting is (not) Copyright (C) 1988 ... (FYI: do you know that under International Treaty, the CASE of the "C" in Copyright and (C) is significant - get the wrong case and you endanger your international copyright protection! (and they recently changed the mandated case of the symbol from (c) to (C) (or is it the other way around?). It is a lot of fun having to rebuild all your ROMs to change that one character!)
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (07/12/88)
In article <4765@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes: > It would seem that if AT&T were concerned about names and algorithms > that they would have attempted to stop the MKS yacc distribution > since a) the tool is named yacc, and b) it demonstrates a very high > degree of compatibility with Unix yacc (implying that the underlying > algorithm(s) are the same). Actually, I seem to recall that the MKS version of yacc is in fact a licensed port of the real AT&T yacc -- I do not remember why or who led me to this belief, is there any contradictory (or supporting) information out there to clear up the confusion? That would clear up why AT&T is not after them! > richard hargrove Charles Marslett chasm@killer.UUCP > ...!{ihnp4 | codas | cbosgd}!killer!richardh > --------------------------------------------
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (07/12/88)
In article <4775@killer.UUCP> chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes: >Actually, I seem to recall that the MKS version of yacc is in fact a >licensed port of the real AT&T yacc -- I do not remember why or who led >me to this belief, is there any contradictory (or supporting) information >out there to clear up the confusion? That would clear up why AT&T is not >after them! A couple of weeks ago Alex White, one of the officers of MKS, stated categorically that NONE of the programs which make up the MKS toolkit are ported, derived, or licensed from AT&T code. Since MKS YACC is part of the Toolkit, this statement would seem to apply to it, too. MKS RCS is licensed from Walter Tichy, and the MKS Text formatting package (whose exact name I can't recall) is a repackaging from SoftQuad's DWB port, and is thus licensed from AT&T, but neither of these are part of the MKS Toolkit but are separately sold products. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
jeff@cullsj.UUCP (Jeffrey C. Fried) (07/13/88)
Since the MKS people may not be reading this group, i wanted to respond to the question "is MKS YACC a port of AT&T YACC". To the best of my know- ledge it is NOT. They are using newer algorithms, and, they support LR(2) to some degree. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Fried UUCP: ...!ames!cullsj!jeff San Jose, CA, 95134 (clearly work) San Mateo, CA (home) (408) 434-6636 (415) 349-3744 Because a liar tells the truth, does not mean that the truth is a lie. Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (07/13/88)
In article <4775@killer.UUCP>, chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes: > In article <4765@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes: > > It would seem that if AT&T were concerned about names and algorithms > > that they would have attempted to stop the MKS yacc distribution > > since a) the tool is named yacc, and b) it demonstrates a very high > > degree of compatibility with Unix yacc (implying that the underlying > > algorithm(s) are the same). > > Actually, I seem to recall that the MKS version of yacc is in fact a > licensed port of the real AT&T yacc -- I do not remember why or who led > me to this belief, is there any contradictory (or supporting) information > out there to clear up the confusion? That would clear up why AT&T is not > after them! Yes, most of the tools MKS produces are (debugged, well-ported) licensed versions of gin-yoo-ine AT&T products. AT&T has a bbs-like system you can call into to look and see what's available. You can buy the source to many programs, like yacc and the new awk, for very reasonable prices for private use. I remember the source to the new awk was something like $300. If, on the other hand, you want to re-sell it, the price goes up quite a bit. I think 'new awk' was $10,000 for a redistribution license. In summary, yes AT&T does license their code to other systems houses. The operative word here is license. You can distribute the binaries of your port(s) of AT&T programs i_f_ _y_o_u_ _b_u_y_ _t_h_e_ _l_i_c_e_n_s_e_ _f_o_r_ _i_t_. If you don't buy the license, you are violating AT&Ts copyrights. -- {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes "Happiness lies in being priviledged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Robert A. Heinlein --
egisin@watmath.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) (07/15/88)
In article <4775@killer.UUCP>, chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes: > Actually, I seem to recall that the MKS version of yacc is in fact a > licensed port of the real AT&T yacc -- I do not remember why or who led > me to this belief, is there any contradictory (or supporting) information > out there to clear up the confusion? That would clear up why AT&T is not > after them! > Straight from the "MKS YACC Tutorial and Reference" manual in front of me, I quote: MKS YACC is derived from materials Copyrighted (c) 1983, 1985 University of Waterloo. I don't know what the licencing agreement is.
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (07/15/88)
In article <99@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >Yes, most of the tools MKS produces are (debugged, well-ported) licensed >versions of gin-yoo-ine AT&T products. Would you mind stating the source of this information? According to a posting by Alex White of MKS a few weeks ago, the MKS Toolkit does not contain any AT&T source code; the tools are complete re-implementations rather than ports of UNIX tools. We have two diametrically opposed statements here; I am inclined to believe Alex, and feel that contradictory statements need some documentation to be justified. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (07/15/88)
In article <99@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > Yes, most of the tools MKS produces are (debugged, well-ported) licensed > versions of gin-yoo-ine AT&T products. AT&T has a bbs-like system you > can call into to look and see what's available. I thought so too, but MKS tells me everything in the MKS Toolkit is reimplemented from scratch rather than licensed, even major stuff like ksh. I'm impressed. -- # Thanks; #Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (07/17/88)
In article <99@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: % Yes, most of the tools MKS produces are (debugged, well-ported) licensed % versions of gin-yoo-ine AT&T products. In article <142@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > Would you mind stating the source of this information? > > According to a posting by Alex White of MKS a few weeks ago, the MKS Toolkit > does not contain any AT&T source code; the tools are complete re- > implementations rather than ports of UNIX tools. You are right, I have been corrected on this. The MKS programs are MKS' unique implementations that faithfully implement the functionality of the AT&T kits. My source (to go un-named, he's even more embarrased than I am) was actually speaking of a ksh from Aspen Software (I think - after this I'm not going to stick m_y_ neck out again). The point I made after this stupidity is still valid, however - the original poster was asking about whether or not AT&T licensed their software products for re-sale to markets other than Unix. The answer is yes they do. -- {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes "Happiness lies in being priviledged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Robert A. Heinlein --
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (07/18/88)
In article <142@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >In article <99@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: >>Yes, most of the tools MKS produces are (debugged, well-ported) licensed >>versions of gin-yoo-ine AT&T products. >According to a posting by Alex White of MKS a few weeks ago, the MKS Toolkit >does not contain any AT&T source code; ... Interesting, but not relevant to the original flame war. The version of yacc that was yanked came off of a DECUS tape at some point; that version of yacc is well-known to be a ripoff created by editing the original AT&T source and DECUS no longer distributes it. If MKS has a PD-yacc, that's wonderful. So does the GNU project (Bison). As far as I know, AT&T has never claimed any rights over all LR parser generators or even the name "yacc" -- just the right to their own source code. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins
benoitm@hpmwtla.HP.COM ( Benoit Menendez) (07/21/88)
Hello world, I am currently using YACC from the MKS ToolKit, but they didn't provide LEX. Is there a public domain (or cheap) version of LEX or equivalent which is compatible with the YACC-calling-LEX convention. Thanks for any pointers (or sources). Benoit. ---------------------------------------- Benoit Menendez ARPANET : benoitm%hpmwtd@hplabs.hp.com UUCP : ...hplabs!hpmwtd!benoitm